Rivera v. Farrell Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
474 F.2d 255 · 1973
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Martell v. Boardwalk Enterprises, Inc. (1984), Thomas D. Joyce v. Atlantic Richfield Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation (1981)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 53 (Federal Employers' Liability Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 54 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. Smith · Arizona v. Anelich · Fair v. Meredith · Smith v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If you find that plaintiff knowingly accepted the risk of a dangerously slippery deck but that such acceptance was necessary for the performance of his duties, then plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. However, if you find that it was reasonable under the circumstances for plaintiff to warn his superior officers of the dangerous condition, and that he failed to do so, such failure may constitute contributory negligence. On the other hand, plaintiff was not duty bound to perform a futile act, and if you find that the conditions on the vessel presented an open danger to anyone who cared to look, then he was not obligated to report such an obvious condition. 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The distinction between assumption of risk and contributory negligence is well established. In common law days the knowledgeable acceptance by an employee of a dangerous condition when and if such acceptance was necessary for the performance of his duties was assumption of risk. . . . Contributory negligence, on the other hand, connotes some careless act or omission on the part of the employee over and above that knowledgeable acceptance. ... As the defense of assumption of risk has been abolished by statute . . . the first issue before us is whether the charge permitted assumption of risk to go to the jury in the guise of contributory negligence. The only theory of contributory negligence the record reveals . . . was the argument that appellant was careless in moving in and about the pantry, knowing the sloppy condition of the floors. This theory, however, was really assumption of risk masquerading under another name, because it allowed a finding of contributory negligence on the strength of appellant’s knowledge that a dangerous condition in his line of duty existed and his working in that line of duty.. . . Thus the verdict must be set aside. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Byrd v. Reederei“connotes some careless act or omission on the part of the employee, over and above that knowledgeable acceptance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.